Slashdot Mirror
Amazon To Collect Indiana Sales Tax In 2014
An anonymous reader writes with this quote from an Associated Press report:
"Amazon.com will begin collecting Indiana's 7 percent sales tax from customers in the state in 2014, under an agreement announced Monday. ... Gov. Mitch Daniels' office said Indiana will become the fourth state with such a tax collection agreement with Seattle-based Amazon. It follows a lawsuit by Indianapolis-based shopping mall owner Simon Property Group against the state over the issue and a lobbying push on state legislators by traditional retailers to end what they call an unfair price advantage for online retailers. The deal doesn’t include any other companies, but Daniels said the state is asking Congress to require all online businesses to collect state sales taxes."
Well good for them. I don't really see a problem with this.
Amazon are about to open a new distribution center near Richmond VA, and local retailers are a bit pissed that Amazon will not be collecting sales tax from VA residents.
Amazon purchases to remain free of Va. sales taxes
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The only beneficiary of this will be the state of Indiana. Amazon's prices are already (typically) lower than what I can get them for in a store and I don't have to put up with parking lots, shitty cashiers, nor someone trying to pressure me into getting the "extended warranty". I don't have to wander around the store trying to find it, and I don't have to deal with my items either not being carried by them or else out of stock. And now Amazon has the right to demand the same level of government services that the brick-and-mortar retailers are getting. So 3 years from now, when the anachronistic "main street" retailers finally figure out that sales tax wasn't the issue, it will likely be too late for them to do anything about it.
Retailers gripe about people using their shop for browsing, then buying on Amazon --- but nobody mentions the people (I'm one) who use Amazon for reading reviews, while they're shopping and buying in the retail store.
As far as the tax goes --- I don't buy it. Local taxes help pay for local services. The fireman will come if there's a fire in their shop. Amazon already pays taxes in the location where they do business, and the fireman will come if there's a fire in their warehouse. And UPS and other shippers pay taxes where they operate, too.
The irony is that now we don't have proper representation and we have some of the highest taxes in the world.
Our taxes aren't particularly high for a developed country, and if we aren't properly represented it's because we got what we voted for, or didn't vote.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
First off, none of us like paying taxes, including sales tax. This legislation in question won't do away with sales taxes, and the discussion here should not really be about the legality of sales taxes.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I agree with the business owners. If I can buy something on line and not pay sales tax so get the good cheaper, how is that fair to a local store that must charge the sales tax? Simply put, it's not fair at all. Taxes should be based on the consumer's location, not the outlet's location. We do the same with insurance premiums, some interest rates, etc..
The loophole for internet stores hurts smaller businesses. It favors large companies that can pack up and move to places with the lowest tax rates to attract consumers. Much the same way that interest rate premiums favor the state with the highest legal rates *caugh* Delaware *caugh*.
As long as taxes are legal, I am all for making them as fair as possible.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think that every state will eventually start issuing sales and use certificates for companies that want to sell into their state.
States cannot regulate interstate commerce, that's explicitly reserved to Congress. Any solution will have to come from Congress.
Yes, we probably need to raise taxes, but what we really really really have to do is cut spending.
I disagree that spending cuts are the major priority; we could cut plenty of things plenty deeply, yes, but there's really no sustainable path on which we can continue to charge as little as we do in tax. It's basically impossible to charge the lowest rates in the developed world while simultaneously dominating the planet in military power AND science AND culture AND economic production, yet people seem to believe we can do just that if only we cut spending and lower taxes even further.
But so long as you admit taxes should go up, I can agree with looking at spending first. It's certainly responsible to use what you have more carefully before you ask for more. Just so long as you're not one of those dumb fucks who thinks cutting spending alone can fix the problem we'll get along fine....
I know that's inflammatory language, but seriously: who can be stupid enough to look at our federal budget and think we can even balance the deficit, much less pay off some debt, with spending cuts alone. It's a truly asinine notion, one which any fourth grade math assignment can easily refute, and yet it captivates (imprisons, at this point) a major political party.
My brain almost refuses to believe that anyone could be so ignorant, so selfish and deluded, as to think fully 30% of our federal budget is waste and inexcusable handouts, all of which can be slashed without any remorse or negative consequences at all.
And if you really want to have fun, look at the things Republicans want to cut out, and then look at the fraction of the budget they represent. The NIH, the NSF, foreign aid, the national endowment for the arts, public broadcasting money....all of that put together isn't even 0.5%, and yet they harp on each of those things, individually and extensively, like they're the pinnacle of waste and socialist excess.
God dammit, I'm gonna need some heart medication soon.
Amazon has three distribution centers in Indiana and they are getting ready to open the fourth. I live in Indiana and I have to pay says tax to other online retailers that have a presence in Indiana, but not Amazon.
I have great faith in fools - self confidence my friends call it. - Edgar Allan Poe
It's not a tax on the business, it's a tax on the buyer. The difference here is not that the buyer is not still supposed to pay, it's that Amazon will now handle the collection, because that's 1000x times more efficient than trying to enforce it for every single person in the state(s) collecting it.
And, the complaint from in-state businesses is not that the Amazon, etc is using resources of their state, it's that they are able to compete unfairly with a sometimes 9+% price break. Sure, it can hurt huge companies like Wal-mart with a physical presence in all states, but ironically it's even *worse* for the small, local businesses who are already being hurt by Wal-mart's physical presence...
A zip code isn't enough to calculate a tax rate. There are county level taxes and country boundaries are not necessarily zip code boundaries. So you have to know what county the address is located in.
Furthermore, certain items are tax exempt or taxed at different rates, and not every jurisdiction has the same exemptions and rates. So you may not only need a database of rates at every level of government, but also a database of what is taxable for every level of government of every jurisdiction in the country.
Furthermore, certain jurisdictions have tax holidays so you somehow need to find these out for every jurisdiction in the country every day, while you check to see if anyone has changed their tax rate(s).
So what makes more sense, having every individual find their own solution to this problem, or have the entity responsible for the problem and receiving the money come up with a single solution and indemnify the businesses that use it against any inaccuracies present in the database?
Agreed. I have resided in and worked long-term in many countries including the US, Australia, several Asian and European countries. I definitely paid less tax in the US than I ever did in any other country (on a similar income).
US income taxes are generally lower than other developed countries for most income brackets. This is especially true at the middle-high income level (the top US Federal income tax rate is 35%, compared to 50+% in most of Europe and 45% in Australia, and it kicks in at a higher income). The exception is low-income earners, who pay more in the US than in other countries (many countries have a 0% tax bracket for the first $x of income per year, but US income taxes kick in from the first dollar).
US sales taxes are lowish too, compared with, say, 15-20% VAT seen in much of Europe, or 10% GST in Australia etc. (As an aside, they are also ridiculously complex, varying from State to State, county to county and even city to city - seems like a massive administrative burden compared to the single, flat rate seen almost everywhere else. In fact in most other places, the sales tax/VAT/GST is included in the advertised cost of the item, so if it says $20 on the shelf, it's actually $20 when you get to the counter ... not $20 + 5.75% or whatever random percentage the state/county applies. That always drives me nuts when I'm in the US)
Sure, but the flip side of that is the people screaming "make the rich pay their fair share!!!" as if that will fix the entire problem. That's not going to be even close to enough.
That's quite true. Making only the rich pay more will not be enough; not by most persons' definition of 'rich', anyway.
What bothers me most about the 'rich paying more' debate, however, is the lying responses from the politicians and think-tanks paid to glorify the wealthy, justify flat-taxes, and vilify the bottom 2/3 as selfish profligates sucking at the socialist teat. You see bullshit statements like "even if we took the entire income of the top 1% every year we'd only solve 1/6 of the deficit" or "even if the marginal rate on the top quintile went up by 15% a that would only fix 1/2 of the deficit alone, much less the debt" or one Republican candidate's favorite "54% of Americans pay no tax at all.
First, the top 1% generally have assets far in excess of their yearly 'Income', or even their real income. It's almost outright lying to look at a guy with assets in the billions and say that taking all of his Income every year wouldn't help because his income is only in the tens of millions. Not to mention that tons of that money - for many of the 1% virtually all of it- stays permanently in investment vehicles or goes through enough (technically legal) money laundering to make a Mafioso blush. It's either never technically income despite being economic power, solely controlled by an individual, which is equal to the lifetime output of dozens or hundreds or thousands of people working at the median national salary, or it was hidden from taxation outright. Either rewrite the tax code literally from scratch, or punish their decades of shirking by taxing the extremely wealthy on their assets (even as a one-time event), and the top 1% could indeed put a huge frickin dent in our budget problems.
Second, quintile-based arguments conveniently ignore the fact that even the second quintile from the top bottoms out at $55,000. That's already an acceptable living in all but a handful of cities, and the numbers only go up from there. In most cities the top 40% can easily afford to pay another 1 or 5 or 10% in federal tax per year, to say nothing of what the top 20% and top 1% can afford. I am not saying it wouldn't hurt, but real taxes - the kind that can actually sustain a first-world nation with 350 million people, the world's best educational and scientific capabilities, and a military bigger than the entire planet put together ever had up until the first world war - might have to hurt a bit sometimes.
But the worst of all is probably the argument that the bottom x% pay nothing at all (those greedy little parastic fuckers!). The truth is, the bottom x% pay no final income tax, after their deductions and refunds are processed; when you ask non-partisan analysts and think-tanks who specialize in tax they'll tell you that even the very bottom 1% pay at least 15% of their income in various taxes on property, utilities, retail sales, where even the top 1% pay only 30-35% across all types of tax.
I just can't seem to feel bad that people with six, seven, eight, and fucking nine figure incomes pay twice as much tax as the dirt poor. Can you? A lot of people, from the filthy rich to the upper-middle-middle class who just wish they were, need to shut up and pay their damn share. Before hey find people with pitchforks at their doorsteps. I'm not some militant communist whacko, not in the least, but I'm also not kidding when I say that. Just because the standard of living is so high that only the destitute in America have any serious complaints to make versus any other nation or time in history doesn't mean people don't notice the looting and abuse going on. Just because they have TV and cell phones and generally have heat in the winter doesn't mean the bottom 40% are happy struggling to pay for their healthc
I live in Indiana and I have to pay says tax to other online retailers that have a presence in Indiana, but not Amazon.
Because they aren't really "Amazon.com" distribution centers, perhaps?
Because those "distribution centers" are most likely owned by a different company who just happens to have the name "Amazon" in their name, and just so happens to have an agreement with Amazon.Com that requires acquisition and shipment of materials on Amazon.com's instruction?
Think of it this way... you can have a website named Amazon.com that has a large number of affiliates. The internet-based web site creates an illusion that you are dealing with one company, when you are actually dealing with a multi-level marketing scheme, and Amazon.COM is just the "image" and DBA you, the end user see.
So, when you "order" an item, the order can transparently be sent to an "Affiliate" network member corporation that doesn't have any presence in the buyer's state, e.g. California if the buyer is in Indiana.
Meanwhile... if someone in California buys something, their order could be sent to an Affiliate in Indiana whom will be the party they are legally buying the item from.
And then the Amazon.com website's role is just a "Payment processor" and "Order aggregation" company, for the affiliate networks; they bring all the order to one place, and make the process of selecting the optimal affiliate invisible to the end-user.